[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "swmaerske" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:02:55 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "blroadies" <blroadies@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Stuart W. Mirsky" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
> > A "high degree of correlation" will not always imply causation.
> ...other things need to be present
> > including a clear indication that the X and Y being considered are
> directly related*
>
> Exactly. The problem. There is no way to show the direct relationship
> between a X fiber firing (the cause) and my report of feeling pain (the
> effect).
The way is this: When there is a properly working brain in a person's head,
then he or she is doing certain things. When there isn't, he or she isn't. Both
the doing and the saying and the changes in expression et all come from the
same place: the person with the brain. The relation is physical. The
manifestations are physical and the brain is physical. Looking at ourselves we
are aware that we act physically and we have brains and, lo and behold,
accompanying our actions are some thoughts, some feelings. Others who act in
similar ways report or evidence similar thoughts, feelings, etc.
But you know what? I am really, really tired of going over the same stuff. All
you guys and gals on this list who want to find ways to say the brain and the
mind aren't connected can certainly find lots of linguistic anomalies to create
the appearance of disconnection as you do here.
It's because language is not highly suitable for use with mental phenomena a la
the Wittgensteinian private language argument. For some reason you and others
don't seem to make THIS very important connection.
Okay, that's your choice but, in the end, that's all it is. Just like
philosophical idealists still look both ways before crossing the street, people
who want to deny a causal connection (in the Searlean sense) between brains and
minds are doing much the same. The next time you come face to face with a dead
body, try to talk to it and see where that gets you. Or have a conversation
with your toaster which lacks a brain. Or, tell it to fetch and see if it
responds.
I'm done making the same case again and again and again . . . only to be met by
what looks to me like a kind of wilfull decision to hide behind the vagaries of
language in this area to avoid acknowledging what every modern school kid
knows. And what we all know instinctively: take the body away and the person is
gone.
[Sorry Sean but I'm going to take that break I'd mentioned and let others hold
forth here for awhile.]
>
> Further complexity. If brain is mind, then the X fiber firing IS the
> pain, not its cause. Two sides of the coin argument. But what's the
> coin? We have two sides but no thing that has sides.
>
It's an analogy, not a physical description. Besides, as I've already noted,
the coin is the process-based system running on the brain, not the brain
itself. One side is the physical features we can observe, the other the
subjective experience which we cannot unless it is our own.
> More complexity. If X is the cause of Y it can be mediated by other
> factors A, B, C, all of which are at the same conceptual level as X and
> Y, molecules, let's say. So X drinking alcohol deprives the brain of
> oxygen required by fiber molecules. The "brain is drunk" is another way
> of saying that the oxygen molecules are blocked by the alcohol
> molecules. But "Bruce being drunk" requires a level of analysis that
> isn't available at the molecular level because there is no "Bruce"
> there.
>
> bruce
>
>
It's just a different level of speaking. We could also speak of you as a
particular organic entity, etc., and focus on you as a system of molecules. But
that would be a different language game and not a very efficient one at that.
Go back and read the stuff I excerpted and posted here from wikipedia on
"cause". Not every use requires two events or phenomena on the same level of
observation!
I am trying to be good because Sean is right to have set parameters on these
discussions. I just keep repeating over and over to myself, "it's about
allegiances, that's all, about allegiances, that's all, about allegiances . . ."
That's all it is in the end, how many times some of us can go back to the well
of language and find ways to twist around what others are saying in order to
sustain our own views. I can't believe this is what Wittgenstein had in mind
when he recommended we pay attention to language!
SWM
Other related posts:
